5/11 scotus briefs

delaware_export · Jun 25, 2020

As I understand the argument you offer in part of your young brief, the whole Japanese interment thing was kosher, in keeping with public safety.

/sarc! You went the other way, but you’re defending here what you argue against in the brief.

.gov safety argument does not trump individual rights. Right?

jcutonilli said:
The Declaration of Independence indicates that the role of government is to secure out rights. One of those rights is the right to your life. Public safety is simply the government securing everyone's right to life. Why is that wrong?

jcutonilli · Jun 25, 2020

rbird7282 said:
No it’s not. It is a method used by government to restrict our rights. It’s not the government’a responsibility, it’s up to the individual.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention public safety, you are inferring that the government securing our rights to life =public safety.
Police arresting people for breaking the law (Constitutional laws) is very different then the police “protecting” the public. They can’t protect everyone, I think everyone here would agree with that.
The Constitution also NEVER mentions restricting rights in the name of public safety.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The term public safety is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution in the context of restricting rights (Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2). It also explicitly states "general welfare" and "common defence" which are other ways to describe the concept also.

One thing you will not find in the Constitution is the ability of "police" to arrest people for breaking the law. The closest thing you will find with respect to law enforcement is the ability of congress "for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union". Police are a more modern concept that started in the mid 1850s.

What you are getting wrong is that there is a role the government plays in providing public safety. That role is simply to provide the ability arrest and prosecute people rather than protect individual citizens.

Another thing you are missing is that all of us individuals make up a component of public safety so anything the government does to affect the safety of the individual affects public safety. By taking away the ability of the individual to protect themselves, you take negatively affect public safety.

How you argue these points matter.

press1280 · Jun 25, 2020

jcutonilli said:
The term public safety is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution in the context of restricting rights (Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2). It also explicitly states "general welfare" and "common defence" which are other ways to describe the concept also.

One thing you will not find in the Constitution is the ability of "police" to arrest people for breaking the law. The closest thing you will find with respect to law enforcement is the ability of congress "for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union". Police are a more modern concept that started in the mid 1850s.

What you are getting wrong is that there is a role the government plays in providing public safety. That role is simply to provide the ability arrest and prosecute people rather than protect individual citizens.

Another thing you are missing is that all of us individuals make up a component of public safety so anything the government does to affect the safety of the individual affects public safety. By taking away the ability of the individual to protect themselves, you take negatively affect public safety.

How you argue these points matter.

I think we’ve tried to battle the opposition with stats, and the lower courts simply pick the Bradys research over the NRA’s or even worse call it a tie but still side with the government each and every time.
Also don’t forget since we lost those early cases like Kachalsky that other courts simply follow and don’t want to do their own historical analysis.

jcutonilli · Jun 25, 2020

delaware_export said:
As I understand the argument you offer in part of your young brief, the whole Japanese interment thing was kosher, in keeping with public safety.

/sarc! You went the other way, but you’re defending here what you argue against in the brief.

.gov safety argument does not trump individual rights. Right?

Everyone understand that Korematsu was wrongly decided. I am trying to get the court to understand that we are in the same situation as Korematsu. The problem I see in Korematsu is that they essentially were blaming everyone because a few people might be causing the harms.

What I am defending is that the government safety argument does trump rights in certain instances. I think the government needs to demonstrate that the people they want to take right way from are actually causing the harms. The typical 2A case does not meet that threshold.

You are going to loose the argument if you simply try and argue that the government can never trump a right under any circumstance.

How you argue the points matter.

jcutonilli · Jun 25, 2020

press1280 said:
I think we’ve tried to battle the opposition with stats, and the lower courts simply pick the Bradys research over the NRA’s or even worse call it a tie but still side with the government each and every time.
Also don’t forget since we lost those early cases like Kachalsky that other courts simply follow and don’t want to do their own historical analysis.

It is not really about stats. It is about explaining why the other side is wrong. If you introduce other stats, you are not necessarily explaining why the other side is wrong. When you do that judges see it like a he said she said case where there is no objective decision that can be made. They then defer to the legislature because that is they type of issue they are well suited to handle.

I get the impression that they other courts are much more comfortable using scrutiny analysis rather than historical analysis. It certainly makes it harder when there are a lot of cases that we have lost. You need to at least explain why those other cases were wrongly decided to have any hope of overcoming the precedent that they set.

Fedora · Jun 25, 2020

jcutonilli said:
You need to at least explain why those other cases were wrongly decided to have any hope of overcoming the precedent that they set.

It would help if you could offer an argument that would have changed the Court's action on any of the last batch of dismissals.

Steel Hunter · Jun 25, 2020

Fedora said:
It would help if you could offer an argument that would have changed the Court's action on any of the last batch of dismissals.

Sometimes there is no solution. Life is unfair, so get used to it.

rbird7282 · Jun 25, 2020

jcutonilli said:
The term public safety is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution in the context of restricting rights (Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2). It also explicitly states "general welfare" and "common defence" which are other ways to describe the concept also.

One thing you will not find in the Constitution is the ability of "police" to arrest people for breaking the law. The closest thing you will find with respect to law enforcement is the ability of congress "for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union". Police are a more modern concept that started in the mid 1850s.

What you are getting wrong is that there is a role the government plays in providing public safety. That role is simply to provide the ability arrest and prosecute people rather than protect individual citizens.

Another thing you are missing is that all of us individuals make up a component of public safety so anything the government does to affect the safety of the individual affects public safety. By taking away the ability of the individual to protect themselves, you take negatively affect public safety.

How you argue these points matter.

Public safety is only mentioned there with regard to rebellion or invasion, that’s not what we are discussing here.
Promote general welfare means to create and environment where people can thrive on their own with limited government. This is perhaps the most abused language in the Constitution, it has been used to justify (wrongfully) everything under the sun.
Common defense refers to invasion or rebellion, not anything else.
It seems as though you are of the belief that rights can be restricted simply by the government claiming one of those two things, I disagree.
As for the bolded portion above, I’m not missing anything as we are in agreement. The problem is the government continually restricts the law abiding citizen under the guise of “public safety” yet every time they do that, it only hurts public safety. They are on the wrong side.

jcutonilli · Jun 25, 2020

rbird7282 said:
Public safety is only mentioned there with regard to rebellion or invasion, that’s not what we are discussing here.
Promote general welfare means to create and environment where people can thrive on their own with limited government. This is perhaps the most abused language in the Constitution, it has been used to justify (wrongfully) everything under the sun.
Common defense refers to invasion or rebellion, not anything else.
It seems as though you are of the belief that rights can be restricted simply by the government claiming one of those two things, I disagree.
As for the bolded portion above, I’m not missing anything as we are in agreement. The problem is the government continually restricts the law abiding citizen under the guise of “public safety” yet every time they do that, it only hurts public safety. They are on the wrong side.

You made two statements that were false "Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention public safety" and "The Constitution also NEVER mentions restricting rights in the name of public safety" The clause I mentioned specifically proved both statements false. The "general welfare" and "common defence" were meant to demonstrate that there are additional mentions in the Constitution about public safety (at least in concept) which address the first statement. Nowhere does the constitution mention that those two terms ("general welfare" and "common defence") can be used to restrict rights.

The Constitution was not meant to define our rights, it was made to place limits on the Federal Government. The 2A did not define the right to keep and bear arms, it merely limits what the government can do to the right. History certainly demonstrates that there can be limits placed on the right due to public safety.

There is some basis for the government's position, which is why they win. If there really no basis they would loose. The problem is that the government is claiming a broader interpretation of government provided public safety than what they can provide. If you do not challenge it then the courts are simply going to accept it. This is what is happening. This is why arguments matter.

pcfixer · Jun 26, 2020

jcutonilli said:
There is some basis for the government's position, which is why they win. If there really no basis they would loose. The problem is that the government is claiming a broader interpretation of government provided public safety than what they can provide. If you do not challenge it then the courts are simply going to accept it. This is what is happening. This is why arguments matter.

Below is copied from 16 States AG' amicus for Calif ammo background checks.

as follows:
A. States have a legitimate and compelling interest in preventing crime and protecting their residents from gun violence. As an initial matter, the state interests proffered by California— promoting public safety and protecting its residents from violence,
see AT Br. 38-40—have long been accepted as a “primary concern of every government,” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987) (discussing government interest in “the safety and indeed the lives of its citizens”). As one example, this Court has recognized as “self-evident” that “promoting public safety and reducing violent crime are substantial and important government interests.” Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2015). More specifically, the court has acknowledged the state interests in reducing the many deleterious effects of improper or illegal access to firearms, including “the harm of intentional and accidental gun use”; violent crime; “the
Case: 20-55437, 06/19/2020, ID: 11727780, DktEntry: 19, Page 22 of 32

18
danger of gun violence, particularly in the context of mass shootings and crimes against law enforcement”; and “the harm and lethality of gun injuries in general, and in particular as against law enforcement officers.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Other circuits, too, have reached this same conclusion. See, e.g., Wilson v. Cook Cnty., 937 F.3d 1028, 1036 (7th Cir. 2019) (“reducing the overall dangerousness of crime and making the public feel safer were substantial interests”) (cleaned up); Gould v. Morgan, 907 F.3d 659, 673 (1st Cir. 2018) (“In point of fact, few interests are more central to a state government than protecting the safety and well-being of its citizens.”); Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 877 (4th Cir. 2014) (“protecting public safety and preventing crime . . . are substantial governmental interests”); Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 437 (3d Cir. 2013) (identifying “a significant, substantial and important interest in protecting its citizens’ safety”). In short, California has asserted compelling state interests. And despite the district court’s concerns, this case is not one where the judicial branch is being asked to give “deferential treatment” to state laws based on insubstantial or unsubstantiated interests. ER 60-61.
Case: 20-55437, 06/19/2020, ID: 11727780, DktEntry: 19, Page 23 of 32

19
As the amici States can attest, promoting public safety and preventing crime are legitimate and important state responsibilities. Although the amici States take different approaches in regulating firearms and ammunition, see supra I.B., they all share the common interest in protecting their residents from gun violence. California’s compelling state interests—which, as now explained, were properly substantiated—should be confirmed by this Court. B

The inaccurate statements that prevention of a 1A or 2A rights doesn't prevent public violence one iota. We The People are much safer keeping and bearing arms, especially concealed.

rbird7282 · Jun 26, 2020

pcfixer said:
Below is copied from 16 States AG' amicus for Calif ammo background checks.

as follows:
A. States have a legitimate and compelling interest in preventing crime and protecting their residents from gun violence. As an initial matter, the state interests proffered by California— promoting public safety and protecting its residents from violence,
see AT Br. 38-40—have long been accepted as a “primary concern of every government,” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987) (discussing government interest in “the safety and indeed the lives of its citizens”). As one example, this Court has recognized as “self-evident” that “promoting public safety and reducing violent crime are substantial and important government interests.” Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2015). More specifically, the court has acknowledged the state interests in reducing the many deleterious effects of improper or illegal access to firearms, including “the harm of intentional and accidental gun use”; violent crime; “the
Case: 20-55437, 06/19/2020, ID: 11727780, DktEntry: 19, Page 22 of 32

18
danger of gun violence, particularly in the context of mass shootings and crimes against law enforcement”; and “the harm and lethality of gun injuries in general, and in particular as against law enforcement officers.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Other circuits, too, have reached this same conclusion. See, e.g., Wilson v. Cook Cnty., 937 F.3d 1028, 1036 (7th Cir. 2019) (“reducing the overall dangerousness of crime and making the public feel safer were substantial interests”) (cleaned up); Gould v. Morgan, 907 F.3d 659, 673 (1st Cir. 2018) (“In point of fact, few interests are more central to a state government than protecting the safety and well-being of its citizens.”); Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 877 (4th Cir. 2014) (“protecting public safety and preventing crime . . . are substantial governmental interests”); Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 437 (3d Cir. 2013) (identifying “a significant, substantial and important interest in protecting its citizens’ safety”). In short, California has asserted compelling state interests. And despite the district court’s concerns, this case is not one where the judicial branch is being asked to give “deferential treatment” to state laws based on insubstantial or unsubstantiated interests. ER 60-61.
Case: 20-55437, 06/19/2020, ID: 11727780, DktEntry: 19, Page 23 of 32

19
As the amici States can attest, promoting public safety and preventing crime are legitimate and important state responsibilities. Although the amici States take different approaches in regulating firearms and ammunition, see supra I.B., they all share the common interest in protecting their residents from gun violence. California’s compelling state interests—which, as now explained, were properly substantiated—should be confirmed by this Court. B

The inaccurate statements that prevention of a 1A or 2A rights doesn't prevent public violence one iota. We The People are much safer keeping and bearing arms, especially concealed.

Yet more nonsense from the courts. It’s almost as if they’ve never read the Constitution. Disgusting

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rambling_one · Jun 26, 2020

And learned judges can’t decipher what “shall not be infringed” means.

rbird7282 · Jun 26, 2020

rambling_one said:
And learned judges can’t decipher what “shall not be infringed” means.

Yep.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jcutonilli · Jun 26, 2020

rambling_one said:
And learned judges can’t decipher what “shall not be infringed” means.

rbird7282 said:
Yep.

I will address this one first. Maybe they do understand the "shall not be infringed" part. The real question is what shall not be infringed. Apparently even you cannot identify what shall not be infringed. The right to keep and bear arms is not defined by the Constitution so where do we look to find out exactly what this right is.

jcutonilli · Jun 26, 2020

pcfixer said:
Below is copied from 16 States AG' amicus for Calif ammo background checks.

as follows:
A. States have a legitimate and compelling interest in preventing crime and protecting their residents from gun violence. As an initial matter, the state interests proffered by California— promoting public safety and protecting its residents from violence,
see AT Br. 38-40—have long been accepted as a “primary concern of every government,” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987) (discussing government interest in “the safety and indeed the lives of its citizens”). As one example, this Court has recognized as “self-evident” that “promoting public safety and reducing violent crime are substantial and important government interests.” Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2015). More specifically, the court has acknowledged the state interests in reducing the many deleterious effects of improper or illegal access to firearms, including “the harm of intentional and accidental gun use”; violent crime; “the danger of gun violence, particularly in the context of mass shootings and crimes against law enforcement”; and “the harm and lethality of gun injuries in general, and in particular as against law enforcement officers.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Other circuits, too, have reached this same conclusion. See, e.g., Wilson v. Cook Cnty., 937 F.3d 1028, 1036 (7th Cir. 2019) (“reducing the overall dangerousness of crime and making the public feel safer were substantial interests”) (cleaned up); Gould v. Morgan, 907 F.3d 659, 673 (1st Cir. 2018) (“In point of fact, few interests are more central to a state government than protecting the safety and well-being of its citizens.”); Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 877 (4th Cir. 2014) (“protecting public safety and preventing crime . . . are substantial governmental interests”); Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 437 (3d Cir. 2013) (identifying “a significant, substantial and important interest in protecting its citizens’ safety”). In short, California has asserted compelling state interests. And despite the district court’s concerns, this case is not one where the judicial branch is being asked to give “deferential treatment” to state laws based on insubstantial or unsubstantiated interests. ER 60-61.

As the amici States can attest, promoting public safety and preventing crime are legitimate and important state responsibilities. Although the amici States take different approaches in regulating firearms and ammunition, see supra I.B., they all share the common interest in protecting their residents from gun violence. California’s compelling state interests—which, as now explained, were properly substantiated—should be confirmed by this Court. B

The inaccurate statements that prevention of a 1A or 2A rights doesn't prevent public violence one iota. We The People are much safer keeping and bearing arms, especially concealed.

rbird7282 said:
Yet more nonsense from the courts. It’s almost as if they’ve never read the Constitution. Disgusting

Is is really inaccurate? They certainly have an interest in promoting public safety and preventing crime for example.

Just because you have an interest in something does not mean you can actually accomplish it. This is what is missing from all the other arguments.

While there may be an interest, they are not able to fully accomplish this. They can provide general protections like police and courts that punish people afterwards, but they cannot protect individual citizens. There are numerous court cases demonstrating this. No mention of this in any of the other 2A cases.

What the 2A does is allow the individual to protect themselves and fill in this missing piece. There is a public safety benefit that cannot be provided by the government. No mention of this in any of the other 2A cases. By arguing a purely individual right you are denying the effect of this.

How you argue things matter.

HaveBlue · Jun 26, 2020

jcutonilli said:
I will address this one first. Maybe they do understand the "shall not be infringed" part. The real question is what shall not be infringed. Apparently even you cannot identify what shall not be infringed. The right to keep and bear arms is not defined by the Constitution so where do we look to find out exactly what this right is.

Dictionary?

jcutonilli · Jun 27, 2020

HaveBlue said:
Dictionary?

Heller suggested text, history, and tradition. Are you suggesting that Heller is wrong?

pcfixer · Jun 27, 2020

jcutonilli said:
Heller suggested text, history, and tradition. Are you suggesting that Heller is wrong?

No, Heller is not wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

1. c. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”

also...At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’

These terms are not ambiguous.

It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence

Seems to me in reading the text of Heller that one should bear arms as a natural right. Meaning for self defense. yes, this meaning also is to provide you and your family's safety. So "If" one that is armed in public- could also if many in the public are armed to provide for the public safety. Puts some teeth into the government interest in public safety.

rbird7282 · Jun 27, 2020

pcfixer said:
No, Heller is not wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

1. c. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”

also...At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’

These terms are not ambiguous.

It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence

Seems to me in reading the text of Heller that one should bear arms as a natural right. Meaning for self defense. yes, this meaning also is to provide you and your family's safety. So "If" one that is armed in public- could also if many in the public are armed to provide for the public safety. Puts some teeth into the government interest in public safety.

~~Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk~~

jcutonilli · Jun 27, 2020

pcfixer said:
No, Heller is not wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

1. c. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”

also...At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’

These terms are not ambiguous.

It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence

Seems to me in reading the text of Heller that one should bear arms as a natural right. Meaning for self defense. yes, this meaning also is to provide you and your family's safety. So "If" one that is armed in public- could also if many in the public are armed to provide for the public safety. Puts some teeth into the government interest in public safety.

rbird7282 said:

Click to expand...

Heller did not say it was a unlimited right though.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Click to expand...

This is why a dictionary does not help. Heller did not really provide a methodology in which to evaluate these restrictions. This is the area where the courts are struggling.

5/11 scotus briefs

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

HaveBlue

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics